Appeal No. 2001-2327 Page 8
Application No. 08/835,460
its teacher." Id. (quoting W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553,
220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
Most if not all inventions arise from a combination of old elements. See In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, every
element of a claimed invention may often be found in the prior art. See id. However,
identification in the prior art of each individual part claimed is insufficient to defeat
patentability of the whole claimed invention. See id. Rather, to establish obviousness
based on a combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, there must be some
motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination
that was made by the appellant. See In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343, 48 USPQ2d
1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127
(Fed. Cir. 1984). Even when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference, there
must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference.
See In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
The motivation, suggestion or teaching may come explicitly from statements in the
prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases the nature of
the problem to be solved. See Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617. In
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007